I wonder if they can make it a little lighter, shorter, give it the sharpness and AF speed of the f2.8 and make it fully weather sealed without affecting the price too much? IS is a nice idea, but I'll happily skip it if it means a big price increase. Like many people, I only venture into 400mm territory when photographing sports and wildlife and IS isn't going to help freeze action much better.

It's interesting that you would happily skip IS.

Obviously one wouldn't want to pay heaps but I think in this case about the general rule that without IS you need to shoot a 400mm lens at at least 1/400th to get consistently sharp images. There are many instances where you don't necessarily need a speed of 1/400th to stop movement of wildlife. If IS can help steady the lens so that about 1/60th to 1/100th are useable (and even slower), then to me that opens up many more possibilities for the lens.

I suppose it's horses for courses but when I had the original there were plenty of times when IS would have been handy.

IS is a must for me.

IS even makes it easier to see what your shooting hand-held at 400mm. I hate a jiggling, bouncy view.How can you expect to capture the right "moment" when the viewfinder is like driving a jeep down a mountain pass?

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A fixed lens is mechanicly simpler than a zoom lens. Since the optics are fixed they can be made much sharper than a zoom lens. They are lighter, more robust, and better sealed than a comparable zoom lens. To go to the 100-400 F5.6 zoom lens means paying out an additional $350 for a lens that will not perform as well... Yes you get the zoom feature, but honestly, aren't most of the shots you take with this lens at the 400mm end?

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.

cenkog

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A fixed lens is mechanicly simpler than a zoom lens. Since the optics are fixed they can be made much sharper than a zoom lens. They are lighter, more robust, and better sealed than a comparable zoom lens. To go to the 100-400 F5.6 zoom lens means paying out an additional $350 for a lens that will not perform as well... Yes you get the zoom feature, but honestly, aren't most of the shots you take with this lens at the 400mm end?

Not sure how I feel about DO. It looks like they've been shying away from it with recent releases in favor of other technologies, possibly as a result of customer feedback. However the 400 is supposed to be a whole lot better than the 70-300 DO. For the price it had better be...

There seem to be two DO generations - the old green ring one Canon dumped due to mediocre sharpness and horrible bokeh, and the new one they just patented for lighter tele primes which is supposed a completely other DO tech.

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.

+1. It's not that f/5.6 lenses are automatically (relatively) inexpensive. Just check the price of the 800/5.6. It comes down to the element size required to fill the iris diaphragm with light. A 600/5.6 tele would have a 107mm front element, which is the same as the 300/2.8. The longer focal length would translate to a higher price than the 300/2.8, I'd bet ~$8K for a 600/5.6. Since there's $13K 600/4, and you can get 600/5.6 with a 300/2.8 and 2x TC, I doubt Canon will see much of a market for a 600/5.6.